The case of "Shouting "Fire!"" is complex about freedom of speech since from it, I noticed that freedom of speech has some exceptions and wonder why some restricted cases end up being protected by the law. Freedom of speech entails the political right to communicate the opinions and ideas of an individual to any willing party to receive them. This freedom is done irrespective of the freedom used. Freedom of speech may not entail threatening cases or provision of false message about someone or raising of alarm to make fun out of the action. Speeches should not be false or provocative in a way that would generate problems to a person or a society unless the information provided is correct.
Shouting fire when there is no fire would create a situation of tension and other emotional distress to the people within the claimed fire location. This practice would be against the dimensions of freedom of speech. The misuse of free speech should not be taken lightly since a routine case may turn out being serious and affects the lives of many people. People need to be careful about their freedom of speech. They should not use such freedoms to provoke others by using them as experiment subjects to find out they way they react to a certain case of false and frightening claim like shouting fire in publicly crowded places, halls, or building. Such a case could be disastrous and emotionally harmful.
The First Amendment to the US constitution protects freedom of speech. Many state constitutions, state laws, and federal laws provide support to the First Amendment. These state constitutions, state laws, and federal laws provide that freedom of speech is hardly absolute and provides some exceptions, which depend on time, manner, and place for the restrictions to apply. The case of inciting soldiers not to fight in the World War I resulted to neglect of duty in a contract, but the law did not find any basis to claim the speech as inapt. The case of fire shouting involves inapt analogue due to the factual falsity in the speech. I have learnt that, while people have the right to freedom of speech, the misuse of the freedom may against the law. Notably, the law may protect some cases of misused freedom of speech if the speech has no aspect of inapt analogue.
My opinion in this case is that freedom of speech should not be harmful to others. People need to understand their scope of freedom of speech and aspects of speech, which may make them liable for any social or emotional damage resulting from their speeches. I believe that freedom of speech should not be misused in any way whether aimed at personal gain or not. People should consider the choice of wards, the case of the speech, and the way it may influence the public.